The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-25-2010 Council Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE � �/ 25/�� C�. COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Please complete the following information for Cify records. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1 '� :� '� �-c t� ,�'1-`� `t('�(� s '^-� �L�,t ; , �� r � ,,- . � -,, _..-:� 2. _ � � ,/ ./a '/l t , .1�. � .�`�'<< �t ,(_� ) %�', - "�� <_ _� `% �� r.-�� .. -�<< � � '�-:��t � " � 7 �� -� � 3. �' � �� •��1 l'�j .,1 �� ;r.'��;; '� _ 4. � �� T � � 5. �.SZ'��'�`�� , '� ��; � �� -� �, L,��' �� r ��; �,� �a �� . l� ( > > � � �f �.� __. 6. �� , ; .-�� ._.. _ - ,.-- ..� - ,� c � � /�. r- �..:Z � �' ��! .�c -�i'7 ` ~ � .-, / � / ` � � c; /� i / �� 7 f \ ( ,.� � / � .�. . � � 7. "t� ' w ='�' ��' � ,f `� a l ��i;t i.:,�: �) �' �� ' �ry ^�, � 8. � ,-�'(��-L, "`� � � ;� `�� c�`�;� ��- � � 3 . �;� --j �'% ' 9. � � � � �� %' �� ;. � " l�� - ?< = ' , - F� 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:1(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)�PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, October 25, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Consent Agenda 1. Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes * 2. Regular Council Meeting of October 11, 2010 Public Hearing – 7:00 p.m. 3. Certification of Delinquent Utilities – Resolution 4. Certification of Unpaid Service Charges – Resolution Presentation 5. Hennepin County Update – Hennepin County Commissioner Jan Callison Planning Commission Comments – Linda Feuss, Representative Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report 6. #10-3483 City of Orono – Zoning Amendment – Columbarium – Ordinance 7. #10-3484 City of Orono – Amendment to Zoning Code Sections 78-1 and 78-1434 (Historic Buildings) – Ordinance * 8. 1820 Fox Street – Termination of CUP Mayor/Council Report City Engineer’s Report 9. Long Lake-Orono Water System 10. Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasibility Study – Resolution City Administrator's Report 11. City of Orono – Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption – Resolution 12. Year to Date General Fund Budget Information 13. Accept Donation of Property Use – Resolution 14. Accept Donation – Resolution 15. Establish Date and Time for 2011 Annual City Goal Setting Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, October 25, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us City Attorney's Report 16. Licenses & Permits Gambling – Resolution * 17. Bills Upcoming Issues and Events 2010 10/25 – Joint Council and Orono School District Work Session, Monday, 5:30 p.m. 10/25 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 10/26 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 10/27 – Fire Advisory Board, Wednesday, 8:00 a.m., Fire Station 1 10/30 – City Offices Open for Absentee Voting, Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. 11/01 – Absentee Voting at City Hall until 5:00 p.m., Monday 11/02 – GENERAL ELECTION, Tuesday, 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. 11/03 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 11/08 – Canvassing Board, Monday, 6:45 p.m. 11/08 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11/09 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 11/11 – HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day, Thursday 11/15 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Mayor White) 11/22 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11/23 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 11/25 – HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day 11/26 – HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 20 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White, Council Members James Murphy, Cynthia Bremer, and Doug Franchot. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, City Attorney Andrea Poehler, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Clerk Lin Vee, Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor James White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of September 27, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of September 28, 2010. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. NORTH FARM ROAD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Kellogg stated tonight’s hearing is a public hearing for a project to install a pressure sewer system to serve the North Farm Road neighborhood. The proposed assessment is $7,500.00 per unit for each of the nine properties in the project. The assessment is for a 15-year time period at an interest rate of 6.25 percent. Seven of the nine property owners are in agreement with the project. Several properties in the neighborhood have conforming septic systems. City policy allows property owners with a conforming septic system to request exclusion from the project assessment, and the City will then finance this portion of the construction cost until the property does connect to the sewer system. The property owner may continue to use the conforming septic system until either the system fails or a new or expanded house is constructed, at which time connection to the sewer system is required. At the time a property that requested exclusion from the assessment wants to connect to the sewer system, payment of the full current sewer connection fee is then required before a sewer connection permit is Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 1 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 20 (4. NORTH FARM ROAD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT, Continued) issued. The sewer connection fee is based on the project assessment and is increased by a cost of living adjustment every year. At the present time the property owner at 1650 North Farm Road is considering exclusion from the project assessment. Two assessment rolls have been prepared showing this property included and excluded from the assessment. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. White noted this is the third neighborhood in Orono this year that will be able to obtain city sewer since Orono has adopted its new Comprehensive Plan. Murphy indicated the annual interest rate at 6.25 percent seemed slightly high to him and that he had a discussion today with the City Administrator concerning that. Olson indicated he did research interest rates charged by other cities and that typically cities tend to set their interest rates two percent over whatever the expected cost of bonds would be. Bonds for a 15-year bond would be in the area of 3.75 percent, and that approximately two percent above that would be the 5.25 percent. Loftus stated Staff would be comfortable recommending the interest rate be lowered to 5.25 percent. Loftus noted it is a $7,500 assessment per unit over 15 years. Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to continue the North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Project to the assessment hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. b. Assessment Hearing White opened the assessment hearing at 7:12 pm. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair White closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Kellogg noted he did have some discussions with the one property owner that did not sign the petition and that that property owner is not present tonight. Kellogg recommended the resolution including all nine properties be adopted. Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5972, a Resolution Adopting the North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements Assessment Roll, including all nine properties, with the interest rate being lowered from 6.25 percent to 5.25 percent. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 2 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 20 (4. NORTH FARM ROAD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT, Continued) Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5973, a Resolution Accepting the Bid and Awarding the Contract to E. J. Mayers, Inc., for the North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer Project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. LMCD REPORT – ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE McDermott reported the LMCD has been dealing lately with issues relating to the Wayzata Bay Yacht Club, which will likely continue to be reviewed over the winter. The LMCD is also looking at reducing its costs and whether there should be a cost of living increase. Murphy noted the Minnehaha steamboat has been pulled out of the water and the boat is now in storage. Murphy reported they did not find any zebra mussels on the outside of the boat and that they will be conducting an internal inspection of the boat to ensure that no zebra mussels have gotten into the engine. McDermott noted that the DNR is asking boat owners to report any findings of zebra mussels to them. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – DENISE LESKINEN, REPRESENTATIVE Leskinen stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Barrett, 941 North Arm Drive, noted he appeared before the City Council back in May to discuss their joint dock license and that he has not received much information since then. It was his understanding there were supposed to be a couple of workshops and a determination to find out who is responsible to clean up the area. Barrett indicated he did hear from City Engineer Kellogg that it was going to be discussed during Orono’s budget season but that he was led to believe it would also be discussed at two workshops over the summer. The two items they are interested in relate to the length of the time the surveys would be good for concerning the joint docks and how the property would be inspected. Barrett indicated he was wondering what has occurred since May 10th. White noted the City did adopt a preliminary budget last month and one of the items remaining for discussion is the multiple dock situation and the sediment in the pipe. White noted the City is experiencing considerable pressure to keep the budget at current levels. Barrett noted the minutes reflect that a decision was going to be made regarding whose responsibility it was to clean up the sediment regardless of the budget. White indicated the City Council has not received a report on this issue. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 3 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 20 (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Kellogg indicated his office has been in the process of updating the City’s surface water management plan, which is going before the Minnehaha Watershed District this Thursday night for preliminary approval. Then a memorandum of understanding will need to be executed before it can be finally approved. Kellogg indicated his office has put together a 10-year CIP, which is basically the CIP from the last surface water management plan. None of those projects have been accomplished to date and there needs to be a prioritization of those items. They have identified 10 larger projects that the City should consider undertaking but he is not sure whether the delta cleaning is part of this 10-year CIP. Kellogg noted there are budgetary constraints and that the storm water improvement projects have to be prioritized. Kellogg indicated he wanted to get past the approval process on the surface water management plan before moving forward. They have also prepared separately a 7-year CIP that includes all improvements throughout the City and the delta project is identified in that plan. Due to the limited funding available, projects scheduled for the next 10 years will need to be paid in part with grants and other financial assistance. Olson noted the fund balance before the Casco Point project was around $700,000, but that approximately half of that was expended on Casco Point. The City currently receives around $125,000 a year in that fund from user fees. Kellogg stated they have not lost sight of the project and are working on priorities at the present time. Barrett stated with every year this project is delayed, more sediment collects, which fills in a couple of dock spaces. Barrett asked who will be accepting the responsibility to clean up the delta. White asked Mr. Barrett if he is requesting the City accept that responsibility rather than the association. Barrett noted the pipe is located on an adjoining property and is not on their property. At the May Council meeting it was decided there would be a work session to determine whose responsibility it was. White stated his recollection of the meeting was that Staff would look into the situation and gather additional information on it. Barrett noted he sent an e-mail to the mayor and the rest of the City Council on this matter and that he did not receive a response back from the mayor. Barrett indicated he received a response from McMillan and Murphy. White indicated he did not receive that e-mail. Barrett noted the minutes from that meeting reflect that Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the application for a dock use licensed for the Forest Arms Country Club Homeowners Association for 2010 based on the current survey, with the requirement that a new survey be updated and obtained prior to the submittal of the 2011 application, and with the additional requirement the City Engineer review the runoff situation, determine what the City’s responsibility is as it relates to the delta, and to direct Staff to develop a policy regarding how often the surveys should be updated. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, McMillan opposed. Barrett commented that the motion is pretty clear. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 4 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 20 (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Bremer stated that is her recollection of the meeting and that she also had the understanding that something else would happen with this situation. The survey question was discussed and the Council decided that the homeowner’s association could use that survey for their application this year, but there was also a question on whether the survey could be used next time, which is something that Staff will need to look at. Bremer noted the City Council has not received that information yet. Loftus indicated she will check with the City Engineer on the delta situation and that she will work with Curtis on the policy issue. Murphy stated they will be looking at this for next year and that they will need to verify everything. Barrett indicated they would like to work with the City on this. Clint Bucher, VFW, Post 7, stated they are requesting consideration of their request that somewhere in the City Chambers hallway they would be allowed to post their colors and banner. He has spoken with City Staff on this issue and they are in the process of collecting information from other cities on how they have handled similar requests. Bucher noted the VFW is a nonprofit organization and that Post 7 has been in existence for 108 years. It provides public service to the community and works with the local high school on a scholarship award, sponsors various fundraising activities for people who are stationed overseas and veterans’ families in the area as well as other community projects. Post 7 does not have their own building and they would like their colors displayed at the City Council Offices since this is where they meet. White commented the VFW is always welcome and that Staff will look into this and get back to Mr. Bucher. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 5. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNHI RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET – VARIANCES Curtis stated the owners purchased the property in December 2009. An old garage was removed in or about 1992, but a new garage was not constructed. They are requesting a hardcover variance in order to construct a new, attached garage and a front porch. Within the 75-250 foot zone, 710 square feet of hardcover would be added for the garage, 185 square feet for the porch, and only 11 square feet to make the driveway. The existing gravel and cement parking area of 699 square feet would be removed. The applicant is requesting a variance for a hardcover increase of 421 square feet. The Planning Commission voted 2 to 3 on a motion to recommend approval of the hardcover variance in order to allow construction of the proposed garage. The motion also included a recommendation to the City Council to explore a code amendment allowing construction of a garage on properties with principal structures that do not have a garage. This motion failed. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 5 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 20 (5. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNHI RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued) Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable use of the property and the hardcover proposed is not supported by a hardship. Further, the applicant has not demonstrated that enforcing the hardcover provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Bremer asked if it had not been for the recent Supreme Court ruling, whether Staff would have recommended approval of this application. Curtis indicated Staff would have recommended some level of hardcover variance. Bremer stated the recent Supreme Court ruling has changed how cities can deal with variances. Bremer noted the case before the Supreme Court involved a person who already had a garage and were requesting permission to add a second story on to the garage. This property owner does not currently have a garage. Steven Schussler indicated the previous garage was torn down by a previous owner due to its deteriorated condition. The previous property owner had received approval to construct the garage but it was never constructed due to financial reasons. Bremer asked whether it was a detached garage that was originally approved. Schussler indicated it was. Schussler indicated the house is homesteaded. Sunhi Ryan is a co-owner of the property and is currently a real estate agent. Sunhi was attacked a couple of months ago in downtown Minneapolis. The Supreme Court ruling talked about hardship cases. Schussler stated in his opinion this is a hardship case given the additional security an attached garage will provide. They are willing to drop their other plans for improving the property until the Supreme Court ruling is changed. Schussler stated having a home in Minnesota without a garage that was approved years prior would also be a hardship. They would like to live in the great City of Orono but that it is literally impossible to be able to use your property without a garage. The garage would also provide storage space. They are requesting a two-car garage and are willing to forego a patio and a porch in order to obtain the safety that they are seeking. The Planning Commission voted 2-3 on this application but that in his view there is a fear that the Supreme Court ruling would come down upon the City Council if their application was approved. Schussler indicated he has lived in Minnesota for over 27 years and has seen Planning Commissions overruled many, many times. Schussler requested the City Council look at their individual situation. Schussler stated the book, The Speed of Trust, contains a statement by Henry Ford which states the following: “If there is any great secret of success in life, it lives in the ability to put yourself in the other person’s place and to see things from his point of view as well as your own.” Schussler stated he would ask the City Council to put themselves in their position. All they are requesting is a safe place to park their vehicles and access their house. If they r educe the size of the garage, it would result in a one-car garage and they would also need to downsize the size of their car. Schussler stated in his view the reasonableness of the request should also play a part in the Council’s decision. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 6 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 20 (5. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNHI RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued) White commented the recent Supreme Court ruling does play an important role in the granting of variances and that the City Council is not allowed to pass a variance that is contrary to state law. The City Council does have a little more leeway than the Planning Commission. White noted the variance is granted to the land and not the individual. City Attorney Poehler indicated the variance is granted to a specific property and not an individual. Bremer stated the question becomes whether every resident in Orono should be allowed to have a garage and that unfortunately the City Counc il does not know the configuration of every lot. Bremer indicated she previously owned a home that had a detached, single garage. Bremer indicated that while it was not a safety concern for her to have an attached garage, she had a small child and it was difficult going back and forth to the garage with him. Bremer indicated she realized the chances of getting a larger attached garage were slim and that she learned to live with the house she purchased. Bremer stated it appears this conversation is headed in the direction that major modifications will need to be made to the house if the applicant desires a garage. Bremer noted the Planning Commission looked at this very thoroughly and that the question becomes what other options the applicant has, which was also examined by the Planning Commission. Bremer asked what the City had previously approved for a replacement garage. Curtis indicated Staff did a quick analysis of what could be done on the site. Curtis stated she did speak with the applicant’s contractor and a new home could be constructed on the lot that would be smaller than what currently exists but they would then be able to rebuild and include a garage. The applicants could also remodel and do a tuck-under garage. A detached garage would be limited in size due to the setbacks. Schussler stated after reviewing the Supreme Court decision, in his view hardship is an incredible thing. The dictionary definition does not justify some of the terms that are being used today. The Planning Commission’s vote was 2-3, which implies that some on the Planning Commission feel there is a hardship even with the Supreme Court ruling. Schussler indicated they are not looking to construct an office or a workout studio and that they are willing to work within the rules and regulations. The rules call for an extension of what is presently allowed and that the hardship rules apply here. The Supreme Court allows for hardships and that he would encourage the City Council to think why the Planning Commission vote was 2-3. Murphy stated one of the things that the Supreme Court ruling did was to bring to a halt the granting of variances for structures that probably should not be built, particularly around lakeshores. Murphy commented he cannot imagine a house in Orono without a garage and that perhaps the City Council should review what the penalty would be to the City if a variance is granted in this case. Poehler indicated the Minnesota Legislature is going to have to look at the Supreme Court ruling and determine whether they want to make any changes to the language. The risk to approving a variance is that somebody will challenge the City Council’s granting of that variance and the City’s decision could be overruled by the courts. Schussler stated in the case before the Supreme Court the property owners did not need the structure and they did not prove a hardship. Schussler indicated they will need to move if they cannot build a garage, Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 7 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 20 (5. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNHI RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET, Continued) which is also an extreme hardship. The property was purchased with the understanding that the garage had been approved years earlier but was not constructed due to a lack of funds by the previous owner. They have made some other improvements to the house and would like a simple garage. Murphy stated another thing with the language that is troublesome is the phrase reasonable use, and that he would like the City Attorney to address that. Murphy asked whether this application should be tabled to allow the City Council to better understand what the implications would be if they granted the variance. Bremer stated unless the City has some kind of public policy that states every property owner in the City of Orono should be permitted a garage, the City’s current zoning codes do not allow this variance to be approved unless the City Council is so confident that they can say the property owners cannot utilize the property without a garage. Bremer noted people have been living in this house without a garage previously, which implies that there is reasonable use of the property. Bremer stated city law would need to be changed in order to allow them to grant the variance. The City does have the ability to enact their own zoning codes, but without a specific law stating that every property owner should have a garage, the City Council has to look at the hardship standard before granting a variance. Schussler asked what the hardship standard is. Bremer indicated the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Schussler asked if reasonable use means not having a garage. Bremer stated it comes down to an interpretation of the law. The City Council has reviewed a number of variance applications since the Supreme Court ruling and that this application is probably one of the best examples of how frustrating the ruling is. Cities previously granted variances based on whether the request was reasonable. Bremer stated she is hopeful the state legislature will amend the language and allow the cities more flexibility. White noted the City Council is constrained on this matter and that every city is in the same situation. White stated it unfortunately takes a while for the legislative wheels to turn but that it would be dangerous for the City to pass a law that allows all residences to have a garage. White commented he is not sure there is a way to pass a city law that is in opposition to a state law. White asked if the applicants would like their application tabled. Schussler indicated that would be fine. Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to table Application #10-3467, Steven Schussler and Sunhi Ryan, 1935 Concordia Street. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Curtis noted the applicant will have to sign an extension of the time period. Schussler indicated he would be agreeable to that. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 8 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 20 6. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN WITH PLAT AND EASEMENT VACATION Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and site plan approval for a 24-resident memory care facility. The applicant also requests approval of a plat to consolidate the three existing lots that comprise the site into one lot and the vacation of the drainage and utility easements associated with the old plat. At the August 9th meeting, the Council reviewed the revised request and heard comments from the neighbors. The applicant was directed to revise the civil plans in accordance with the Planning Commission and City Engineer’s direction. Additionally, the applicant was encouraged to work with adjacent property owners in revising the landscape plan to achieve a level of screening satisfactory to all parties. The applicant met with the neighbors on September 2nd and a revised landscape plan has been drafted. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and site plan for the first building of a possible two building assisted living facility subject to the following conditions: 1. Any additional lighting on the site to be dark sky compliant and not create glare, with the zero light level at the property line being maintained; 2. The owner providing an escrow and signing an escrow agreement to ensure that erosion and sediment control measures are properly maintained; 3 The owner providing the financial securities required by code to ensure that all non-building improvements are properly installed, including sewer and water lines and service. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the preliminary plat and vacation of the easements in the existing plat, with the condition that all required drainage and utility and drainage easements will be provided for on the new plat. The City Engineer is continuing to work with the applicant’s engineer to resolve some storm water issues. Upon resolution of the engineering issues, Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, site plan, and plat. Terry Schneider stated the main changes to their plan were to eliminate phase two from the plans and to reduce the footprint of the rooms to avoid the need for a variance. They have had a number of back and forth discussions regarding the ponding. A biofiltration basin will be utilized on the property. Bonestroo has verbally agreed that a biofiltration basin is acceptable and that they are willing to comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Schneider noted another key issue with the application has been the landscaping. They have met with the neighbors on this issue and discussed a number of different options. The basic changes to the landscape plan are to include a solid row of arborvitae along the southern edge of the property and to also add some supplemental trees in that area to offset that dense hedging. Schneider indicated he did speak with the neighbors and they are comfortable with the landscaping changes. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 9 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 20 (6. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Schneider illustrated the existing layout of the property and pointed out the wetland and the area of dense woods on the property. They have focused on how they can provide some landscaping along Kelly to help screen the residential properties. Basically they are proposing three levels of buffering from the south. They are willing to maintain as many of the existing trees as possible unless they are an invasive species or less than desirable trees. Next to the wetland setback area they are proposing to put a row of dense plantings. The third level of buffering will be against the building and will include some large trees. Schneider commented you will be able to see some portions of the building but that there will be considerable buffering on the property. White asked about the lighting on the building. Schneider indicated the lighting would be down lighting and that they are agreeable to turning the lights off at 9:00 or 10:00 at night. There will probably be a security light located on the backside of the garage that will be left on during the night. Murphy asked for a quick overview of the project. Schneider stated this project is basically a duplex and will feel like a community. The building will offer congregate dining and consist of 10 units on each side. They do have the ability to have two to a unit for a maximum total of 24 but they anticipate the majority of the units will have one occupant. The number of staff during the daytime will consist of approximately six employees and three at night. White asked whether this building will actually be constructed once it is approved. Schneider indicated there is no public funding of the infrastructure and the financing is subject to approval by the City Council. A private management company out of Buffalo will manage the facility. Schneider indicated the economics work well with the 20-unit modules and they are self-supporting. Additional units will only add to the economics of the structure. Murphy stated he would like the applicant to address the idea of a second building and what the applicant is agreeable to doing. Murphy asked what the risk to the community is once this first building is constructed for a second building. Schneider stated the property behind this site is zoned 1C and is basically residential. If the site was not replatted, they would in essence have a buildable lot zoned for a duplex and they could in a few months come back in and construct another building. The owners do not feel that is the right choice and would like to combine the two lots, which will require them to come back before the City Council for approval of the second building on the back portion of the site. Schneider indicated this would allow the City Council more discretion on the construction of the second structure. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 10 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 20 (6. #10-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COTTAGES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) White commented it is difficult for the residents whenever there is a change in the neighborhood but that those concerns have to be balanced with the rights of the property owner. White stated in his opinion this proposal is a big improvement over the previous plan. Curtis stated she would like to see the engineering issues resolved prior to the resolution being brought before the City Council. Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the conditional use permit, site plan, and plat, subject to the engineering issues being resolved prior to the resolution being brought back before the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #10-3483 CITY OF ORONO-ZONING AMENDMENT – COLUMBARIUMS Bremer noted she is a member of Good Shepherd Church and that she will not be voting on this application since this ordinance indirectly affects the plans being considered by Good Shepherd. Bremer noted the City Council has received an e-mail from Good Shepherd on how this ordinance will impact their application. The proposed ordinance requires a 10-foot setback from all residential property required for a columbarium and that the property adjoining Good Shepherd is a city park. Given the configuration of the Good Shepherd site, they believe the best location for their inurnment garden is closer than 10 feet from the adjoining city property line. The Planning Commission understood that issue and proposed a 5-foot setback from city-owned property, but the City Attorney drafted language requiring a 10-foot setback since, in his opinion, it would be difficult to differentiate between city residential property and private residential property. Bremer noted the Good Shepherd application will require a variance based on the language contained in the proposed ordinance. Murphy stated he attended the first Planning Commission meeting on this application and that his understanding was that the City was going to require a conditional use permit to address the setback. The ordinance is now going with a 10-foot setback. Curtis stated that was based on the advice of the City Attorney. Murphy stated he personally would prefer being able to analyze the applications on a site-by-site basis. Curtis noted the City Council does have the option to amend the language and perhaps include language exempting the 10-foot setback from a city park or other similar language, which would be a way to address that concern. David Owen, 3486 Ivy Place, Good Shepherd, invited the City Council to visit the site. The 5-foot setback they are looking at is a result of the narrowness of the site. Their design has been in place for a couple of years. Good Shepherd is looking for a 5-foot setback based on the fact that this site is a very wooded site and this area near the property line is flatter and they would like to take advantage of that. They would like to locate the inurnment garden five feet from the city property line to avoid having to deal with some steep slopes. Owen displayed some pictures of the site. Owen pointed out the inurnment garden would be located approximately 90 feet from the nearest property line and 150 feet from the nearest residence. The photos Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 11 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 20 (7. #10-3483 CITY OF ORONO-ZONING AMENDMENT – COLUMBARIUMS , Continued) also show the topography of the site and the impact on the trees the project would have if it would have to be relocated. The inurnment garden is located at least five feet from any property zoned residential and would not be visible from the adjoining residence. Owen commented in his view some other verbiage would work and that perhaps the word zoned could be eliminated from the section regarding setbacks to read that this columbarium is located at least five feet from any adjacent property with a nonresidential use or that the columbarium is located at least five feet from any adjacent properties zoned residential having a nonresidential use or zoned nonresidential. Owen stated he does understand that variances are difficult to approve and that they would appreciate the City Council support. White noted they will need to table this application until Council Member McMillan is present given the fact that the ordinance change requires a super majority and Council Member Bremer will be abstaining. Greg Keller, 528 Aspen Circle, Delano, Good Shepherd, indicated he has attended all of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding this issue. Keller pointed out the Planning Commission attempted to make a distinction between above-ground structures and ground level memorial gardens, which in his opinion is a bonafide distinction that should be made. Ground level memorial gardens will have very little impact on adjoining properties. The ordinance lumps above-ground columbaria and ground level gardens together. The word columbaria is derived from a Latin term for an above-ground structure with small compartments for housing doves, which is different than an in-grou nd structure. Keller stated the Supreme Court decision limits the City Council’s ability to grant variances and that he would recommend the City Council build in some flexibility on the front end. As an example, good drafting technique would dictate that the language not say “the setback shall be,” but rather not less than five feet or not less than ten feet. When this ordinance is reconsidered, Keller stated he would also suggest that all the setbacks for ground level memorial gardens be not less than five feet whether they are adjacent to a residential or commercial property regardless of the zoning. Keller pointed out that Good Shepherd is not guaranteed they will be given a 5-foot setback and that the City Council could require a different setback. Keller commented there is nothing bad about a 5-foot setback and that the City’s current zoning allows for signs to be set back five feet from property lines, entrance monuments to be set back five feet from property lines; and that boats and unoccupied trailers, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures are allowed to be set back two feet from any property line. Keller encouraged the City Council to look at the broader picture and visit some of the other sites in the area. St. Martin’s and Bethel Methodist memorial gardens have busy county roads. Good Shepherd could duplicate that atmosphere if they were trying to squeeze the garden in at the front of the building, which in their opinion would be a horrible location. Good Shepherd has a quiet, secluded area next to city land that will probably remain a city park longer than the Good Shepherd property will be a church. Keller noted the City’s comprehensive plan proposes that the adjoining land remain a city park. The proposed ordinance also does not address setbacks from roadways. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 12 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 20 (7. #10-3483 CITY OF ORONO-ZONING AMENDMENT – COLUMBARIUMS , Continued) Keller pointed out in the Staff memo it states the City Attorney suggested that the term “use of the property” is less clear than the term “zoning of the property,” which in his opinion the opposite is true. Orono’s Code has several zoning districts which are broken down into different districts. The residential zoning district has 13 different residential districts and each one of those has permitted uses. In this particular zone, you have family detached dwellings, publicly owned parks and playgrounds, and municipal buildings. The Code starts out with a very broad term of zoning and then goes to residential, and within those 13 areas, you have permitted uses. Keller stated if permitted use is a legally accepted term within the City’s existing zoning code, he is not sure why that would not be acceptable in this ordinance. Keller suggested language requiring a setback not less than five feet be considered regardless of the adjacent zoning. White commented the City Council feels that columbarium would be a good use for the City. Murphy recommended the Council consider some less specific language as it relates to the setbacks. Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to table Application #10-3483, City of Orono, Zoning Amendment – Colubariums. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0, Bremer Abstained. *8. #10-3485 PAUL LARSON ON BEHALF OF FREDERICK JOHNSON, 3268 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 5974 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5974, a Resolution Granting a Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-370, for the property located at 3268 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT White noted that saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the meeting was Council Member Murphy’s idea nine years ago. CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT *9. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 11 – CASCO POINT ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve Request for payment No. 11 for the Casco Point Reconstruction Project, Geislinger and Sons, Inc., in the amount of $99,359.61. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *10. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 4 AND FINAL – MYRTLEWOOD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 4 and Final for the Myrtlewood Utility Improvements Project, GM Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $14,225.72. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 13 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 20 11. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC PETITION Kellogg stated on July 2010, the City of Orono hosted a neighborhood meeting to address the traffic concerns received from residents along Crystal Bay Road. Residents have now submitted a petition for installation of a cul-de-sac or barrier at one end of the roadway or the other. The petition lists a number of reasons for their request. Bonestroo was asked to provide a cost estimate to study the request. The feasibility study would be prepared on an hourly basis with a cost not to exceed $6,000. In an open, level field it would cost approximately $60,000 to construct a cul-de-sac to meet city design standards. This cost assumes no land acquisition, storm water improvements, grading, tree removal, etc. The difficult parts of estimating a total project cost are the land acquisition associated with the construction as well as the storm water treatment costs for the installation of the additional hardcover. It does not appear there is enough existing right-of-way on either end of the roadway to construct a cul- de-sac and/or barrier. Therefore, land acquisition will be required. Given property values in this area, the construction costs to construct a cul-de-sac are likely to account for only a small part of the total project cost. Approximately 20 percent of residents did not sign the petition. There are also three additional properties that have Shadywood Road addresses but their driveways are off of Crystal Bay Road. The City Council should consider the reaction from Minnetonka Beach residents; emergency vehicle access; bus, delivery and garbage truck access; and funding constraints of the 2010 and 2011 budgets. A feasibility study to further refine the costs and project feasibility could be prepared. The study would be prepared on an hourly basis with a cost not to exceed $6,000. The study would be limited to the cul- de-sac or barrier feasibility and would not include other possible solutions to the claimed traffic speed and volume issues. White asked if the residents are asking the City to close off one end of the road. Kellogg stated the petition asks for installation of a cul-de-sac or a barrier on Crystal Bay Road. Murphy asked if the residents are proposing a cul-de-sac at the border between Minnetonka Beach and Orono. Kellogg stated the cul-de-sac could be located at either end of the roadway and that those options would need to be looked at in the feasibility study. Depending on the location of the cul-de-sac or barrier, the property owners may need to gain access through Minnetonka Beach. Kellogg noted there are three properties that have driveways accessing Crystal Bay Road but do not have a Crystal Bay Road address. Those properties are not repr esented in the petition, so the City would need to make sure that they are included in the discussion. Murphy stated the main issue is the situation the City would be putting itself in by closing off a city street that is a through street to another city. White asked if it is likely the City would be able to come up with the money to construct a cul-de-sac at either end. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 14 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 20 (11. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC PETITION, Continued) Kellogg stated the construction costs are going to be the minor portion of the total costs as compared to the land acquisition costs. White stated there are some property owners in this area who claim they have dock rights on Crystal Bay and would also want some input into this if the road is closed. White commented he is not sure whether they have those docks rights but their deeds are ambiguous. On the other end of Crystal Bay Road is the City of Minnetonka Beach and emergency service vehicles sometimes need to go through there. White stated the City will have to see if they will even be allowed to do this and that it does not make sense from a public safety standpoint and a cost standpoint to close one end of the road. White questioned what the residents would be willing to spend on this. White stated one option could be speed bumps. Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, commented the City Council is currently being attacked by people who feel the City is wasting money. The residents are asking the City to do something that should never be considered based on the costs and that the City has a file a foot high on projects that should be done. Jabbour commented the residents are not recognizing the impact on their safety if one end of the road is closed and that it would also make it impossible for cars to turn around. Jabbour stated the City will need to talk to the Mound Fire Department, the Long Lake Fire Department, and the Orono Police Department. Jabbour stated the most important issue regarding this petition relates to planning and zoning and that he would ask the City Council to divert from that zoning. The City’s current code states that two or more homes must be served with a city standard street plus a 75-foot cul-de-sac, which is in conflict with another part of the code that requires three or more homes to be constructed on a cul-de-sac. Jabbour stated the problem is that no one ever considered the zoning code before making this request. Jabbour questioned whether the City will be able to grant a variance. Jabbour commented that the residents deserve to know what they are going to get up front and that it could become a public safety issue if emergency vehicles are not able to access Minnetonka Beach at times when County Road 15 is congested. Jabbour asked how the City Attorney feels about constructing a cul-de-sac on a substandard road and closing one end and whether a variance would be necessary. Poehler indicated a variance would be necessary but that she is not able to state what the hardship would be at this time. John Hofer, 3339 Crystal Bay Road, commented that former mayor Gabriel Jabbour brings up some good points. The City of Orono has a number of roads that do not currently have a 75-foot cul-de-sac, such as Baldur Park Road, Birch Lane, Pheasant Road, Mapleridge Lane, and West Lafayette Road. In Minnetonka Beach, they have Brooks Lane and Arcola Lane. Long Lake has Apple Glen Road. In that situation they constructed a turnaround area, which is another option here. Ann O’Reilly, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, stated the number one job of the City Council is to look out for the public safety and welfare of the residents. The residents are passionate about this and have put a considerable amount of time into researching this. The residents held a neighborhood meeting and discussed a number of options. Eighty percent or more of the residents on the street are in favor of this petition. O’Reilly noted the three properties whose driveways access Crystal Bay Road were not included on the petition since the petition requires that the properties have a Crystal Bay Road address. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 15 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 20 (11. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC PETITION, Continued) O’Reilly stated the residents have chosen specifically the option of doing a break-away barrier or an enclosure at either end. It appears the first step the City Council is looking at is doing a feasibility study, which would look at all the options. The residents are asking the City Council to consider this petition in order to address the safety concerns of the residents that have developed given the amount of traffic on the road, the speeds the vehicles travel, and the number of children in the neighborhood. The residents would like the City Council to approve the feasibility study to allow the City Engineer’s office to evaluate every aspect of the project. O’Reilly pointed out there is no assurance that land acquisition will be necessary. Bill Wolfe, 3255 Crystal Bay Road, noted not all the residents have signed the petition and that this matter has been discussed with other previous councils on at least two occasions and denied. Approximately five or six years ago in Minnetonka Beach they went through a big effort to close the road on their end. Wolfe indicated he attended that meeting as well and Orono’s Council sent a representative to the meeting. White noted the Orono Police Department thought it was a bad idea given the public safety issues it would create. Wolfe indicated he concurred with the police chief at the meeting and it was later decided not to close the road. Wolfe stated in his opinion this would be bad money spent. LeRoy Erger, 3265 Crystal Bay Road, indicated he has lived on this road for 40 years and has raised four children with none of them being hit. They have tried three or four times to close off one end of this road. Erger commented he is not sure how the City can spend $6000 on something that should be obvious will not be approved. The residents were aware of the road when they moved into the neighborhood. Four properties are for sale currently, including one not publicly listed for sale. Erger commented that dogs in the neighborhood are also a problem. Erger recommended the City consider speed bumps for this roadway and that the best speed bumps are out at Canterbury. Erger suggested the residents pay for a speed bump and that he also has a concern that emergency vehicles will not be able to promptly respond to calls if one end of the road is closed. Terry Hofer, 3339 Crystal Bay Road, stated the demographics have changed drastically in the neighborhood and that there are now approximately 10 children under the age of five. The road was never designed to carry 2000 cars per week and you would not design a house nowadays where that house was located 15 feet away from the street with no sidewalks. Hofer stated the more cars that travel the road, the greater the chances that cars will be traveling at a higher rate of speed. Hofer stated one more reason for the break-away barrier is that ambulances currently don’t want to go down that curve and normally come from Shadywood or County Road 19. When the residents are speaking about safety, it is not so they can live in a gated community but so they can protect the children. This is a dangerous situation and Crystal Bay Road is not your typical neighborhood where you have a nice yard. Some of the driveways are very small and unable to fit a large vehicle. Hofer stated traffic has increased substantially during the time she has lived in the area. Brad Bakke, 3235 Crystal Bay Road, stated he also has a concern regarding the safety of the children. When the road was originally constructed, it was intended for a different use. The use of the road has Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 16 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 20 (11. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC PETITION, Continued) changed over the years. The roadway would be fine if the motorists are driving the speed limit of 15 miles an hour. A lot of people drive at a much higher rate of speed, especially down the hill. If cost is a concern, if safety for the community is a concern, an inexpensive solution would be to have a break-away barrier. An ambulance or police car could drive through them. The break-away would accomplish the objectives of the residents and the City. Bakke noted break-aways have been done in a number of other locations where cul-de-sacs have been constructed. The residents are not saying the City has to construct a cul-de-sac, but there are a number of ways to accomplish this and a compromise could be reached. Speed bumps or a one-way road would cut the problem in half. The feasibility study would allow the City to look at all the options. Teri Abers, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, indicated she moved in approximately one year ago and was not aware of the amount of traffic on that road. Abers stated if she is standing at the end of her driveway taking her garbage down to the road and a truck with a trailer swerves into the driveway, she would be hit. Abers stated in her view it is very important that the Council follow the City Staff’s recommendation and do the feasibility study to look at ways to make the neighborhood safe. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. White stated he is not in favor of closing the street and that in his opinion Staff should obtain the comments from the public safety people and Minnetonka Beach. The study has to eliminate the idea of a cul-de-sac given the costs associated with constructing it and the necessary land acquisition. White stated in his opinion the City should not approve spending $6,000 to look at something that we already know we cannot afford. White noted the City has had to lay off two additional police officers currently and another city staff person last month due to a shortfall in the budget. White indicated he is in agreement that there are some public safety concerns here but that the City and residents need to look at other options. It is possible to make the road safer but the City cannot construct a cul-de-sac unless someone would like to purchase some property and donate it to the city. Murphy stated he has been driving that road for a number of years and that the residents have a number of valid concerns. The road is narrow and there are a number of children and animals. The idea of closing a city road that provides access to another city is not feasible. Murphy asked what is different about this particular road from every other road that is in the city. O’Reilly stated this was originally a horse and buggy road and existed as a path. It does not even have dimensions on the plat as to where the boundaries are. Bakke indicated there is no right-of-way and there is just an easement. O’Reilly stated it existed for a whole different reason and should be servicing just the properties that basically are in that area. Most of the people in Minnetonka Beach do not care for the traffic either. O’Reilly stated in her view this is a unique situation given the nearness of the lake, which attracts additional traffic, and people who do not want to travel on 19 or 15. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 17 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 20 (11. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC PETITION, Continued) Murphy stated the City does care about safety on Crystal Bay Road but that he cannot support closing the road. Murphy recommended staff speak with the police chief. Franchot stated he is troubled with not obtaining a feasibility study because the City Council would be making a number of decisions without obtaining all the facts. One of the reasons this road is different is the location of the Lafayette Club, which is something that needs to be taken into consideration. Franchot indicated he has driven down the road a number of times and that it is unsafe. Franchot stated in his opinion the City needs to spend some serious time looking at that road as the City should do with any road that is unsafe. Franchot recommended the Council approve no more than $6,000 for the feasibility study and to keep the study as straight forward as possible. Franchot stated in his view the residents on the street and the surrounding neighborhood should be heard and that the disadvantages and advantages should be listed for each option. Bremer indicated she does not feel the votes are here to approve a cul-de-sac or a break-away barrier, but that there are other solutions that could be looked at. The study is not really an engineering study and that the City needs to get the input from Minnetonka Beach and the police department. The City needs to address the concerns of the current residents even though this has been discussed previously. It is a difficult road to traverse and there are some concerns with small children. The City is not really able to make the road wider and that she would be supportive of directing Staff to gather additional information. White concurred that Staff should gather additional information. Murphy stated he would be happy to lead up the efforts with staff and the residents. Murphy indicated he would also be happy to speak with the mayor of Minnetonka Beach and that they can call it a task force rather than a study. Kellogg stated a break-away barrier could be constructed very inexpensively but that cars would still need to be able to turn around. Kellogg pointed out that Staff did not recommend the study be completed. This is not really an engineering issue but is more of a public safety issue. Kellogg indicated he is in agreement with Council Member Murphy’s suggestion. It was the consensus of the City Council to form a task force to study this issue, with Jim Murphy heading the task force. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 12. ESTABLISH DATE AND TIME FOR CANVASSING BOARD MEETING Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to schedule the 2010 Canvassing Board meeting for Monday, November 8, at 6:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. DISPOSAL OF BICYCLES Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the disposal of 11 bicycles by K-BID in Maple Plain. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 18 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 20 *14. CONFIRM INTENT TO ISSUE BONDS AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING (ORONO ORCHARD ROAD) – RESOLUTION NO. 5975 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5975, a Resolution Conforming Intent to Issue Bonds and Calling Public Hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *15. CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS AND TO ADOPT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN – RESOLUTION NO. 5976 Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5976, a Resolution Calling Public Hearing on the Intention to Issue General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds and the Proposal to Adopt a Capital Improvement Plan for 2010 through 2015 under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 16. HIGHWAY 12 TURNBACK TO HENNEPIN COUNTY – RESOLUTION NO. 5977 Loftus noted she did speak with James Grube about the turnback process and that Old Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County at the end of this year. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5977, a Resolution of Concurrence CSAH 112 (Orono). Murphy requested the consultant’s costs be monitored closely. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 17. 2011 PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS Loftus stated City Staff has prepared the preliminary 2011 budget for the City of Orono. In August, the Long Lake City Council elected to end the Orono police service, which has resulted in the need to cut $320,000 from the 2011 budget. Police Chief Farniok stated they did look at a number of different options and that the proposed cuts are needed for the long-term. Murphy commended Police Chief Farniok and Staff for their work on the budget cuts. Franchot concurred with Council Member Murphy and thanked them for the quick action taken by Staff on this issue. White complimented police Chief Farniok on the professionalism he has displayed since he has taken over the police chief position. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to direct staff to proceed forward with the proposed budget cuts as outlined in the City Administrator’s memo. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 19 of 20] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 11, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 20 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None *18. LICENSES & PERMITS ONE DAY GAMBLING – RESOLUTION NO. 5978 1. Orono Basketball Association (raffle) Orono Basketball Midday Madness Orono Middle School, 800 Old Crystal Bay North Saturday, October 30, 2010 11:00 am. – 1:00 p.m. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5978, a Resolution approving a lawful gambling application for exempt permit of the Orono Basketball Association for a one-day gambling activity. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *19. BILLS Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:31 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James M. White, Mayor Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 10/11/2010 [Page 20 of 20] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Deliquent Utilities [Page 1 of 5] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Deliquent Utilities [Page 2 of 5] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Deliquent Utilities [Page 3 of 5] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Deliquent Utilities [Page 4 of 5] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Deliquent Utilities [Page 5 of 5] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Unpaid Service Charges [Page 1 of 3] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Unpaid Service Charges [Page 2 of 3] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Certification of Unpaid Service Charges [Page 3 of 3] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Hennepin County Update [Page 1 of 1] REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Item #06 - CC Agenda -10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Date: 20 October 2010 Item No. Department Approval: Administrator Approval• Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis Title: Planning & Zoning Coordinator Item Description: 10-3483 Zoning Text Amendment to Residential Zoning Districts — Columbarium - Ordinance List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Option 1 Exhibit B. Draft Ordinance Option 2 Exhibit C. Council Memo & Exhibits of 10/06/10 Exhibit D. Draft Council Minutes of 10/11/10 Application Summary: At the October 11th meeting the Council reviewed the proposed ordinance allowing columbaria within Orono. Additional testimony was heard from members of the public, specifically Good Shepherd Church. According to City Code section 78-43(a) a two thirds vote is required to amend the zoning code. Councilmember Bremer stated as she was a member of Good Shepherd Church she would abstain from the vote; and Councilmember McMillian was absent. Therefore the Council voted 3-0 to table while directing staff to revise the ordinance language to better accommodate existing places of worship within Orono. Based on this direction, Staff is presenting Council with two options which address the setback of a columbarium. Option 9 suggests a five-foot setback from all property lines, and does not have a distinction based on the adjacent property's zoning classification. Option 2 proposes a 10 -foot setback from residentially zoned property; a 5 -foot setback from non -residentially zoned property; and a 5 -foot setback from City -owned parks, The other components — minimum 50 -foot setback from adjacent principal structures and year-round screening — remain the same with both options. Planning Staff Recommendation The Council should indicate which option best addresses their previous concerns and approve or amend the one of the draft ordinances. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend one of the attached ordinances. Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3483 [Total Pages 80] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 File #10-3484 [Total Pages 18] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 1 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 2 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 3 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 4 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 5 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 6 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 7 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 8 of 9] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 1820 Fox Street, Termination of CUP [Page 9 of 9] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Long Lake-Orono Water System [Page 1 of 5] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Long Lake-Orono Water System [Page 2 of 5] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Long Lake-Orono Water System [Page 3 of 5] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Long Lake-Orono Water System [Page 4 of 5] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Long Lake-Orono Water System [Page 5 of 5] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 1 of 42] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 2 of 42] Feasibility Report Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction City of Orono October 2010 Project Number: 000139-10047-0 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 3 of 42] October 21, 2010 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re:Feasibility Report Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Bonestroo File No. 000139-10047-0 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed for your review is our preliminary feasibility report for the reconstruction of Old Crystal Bay Road in Orono. This project is located south of 6th Avenue N (County State Aid Highway 6) and north of Old Highway 12 (CSAH 112). This report describes the proposed utility and street improvements to Old Crystal Bay Road. Cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in the Appendix, while a cost summary is presented in the Cost Analysis section. We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Council or City staff at any mutually convenient time. Sincerely, BONESTROO Kellie Schlegel, P.E.Darren T. Amundsen, P.E. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Darren T. Amundsen Date: 10-21-10 Reg. No.40924 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 4 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 2 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal........................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 2 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3 Figure 1 – Project Location.......................................................................... 4 2.0 Summary and Recommendations .......................................................................... 5 3.0 Sanitary Sewer Improvements .............................................................................. 6 Figure 2 – Sanitary Sewer Improvements ..................................................... 8 4.0 Water Main Improvements ................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 – Water Main Improvements ......................................................... 10 5.0 Storm Sewer Improvements ................................................................................ 11 Figure 4 – Storm Sewer Improvements ....................................................... 13 6.0 Street Improvements .......................................................................................... 14 Figure 5 – Option 1: Turn Lanes ................................................................ 21 Figure 6 – Option 2: Roundabouts ............................................................. 22 Figure 7 – Typical Sections ........................................................................ 23 7.0 Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................... 24 Table 1 – Proposed Base Improvements Cost Summary – Turn Lanes ............. 24 Table 2 – Proposed Base Improvements Cost Summary – Roundabouts .......... 25 Table 3 – Proposed Additional Improvements Cost Summary ......................... 25 8.0 Funding Options ................................................................................................. 26 9.0 Project Schedule ................................................................................................ 27 Appendix – Preliminary Cost Estimates ............................................................................. A-1 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 5 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 3 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 1.0 Introduction City Council and staff has requested this report to determine the feasibility of reconstructing Old Crystal Bay Road and the municipal utilities between Old Highway 12 (CSAH 112) and Sixth Avenue North (CSAH 6). The proposed project area is shown in Figure 1. In 2006, Orono’s Pavement Management Plan identified this segment of Old Crystal Bay Road as being in poor condition and showing signs of deterioration. In addition to the physical road condition, safety and traffic congestion are concerns regarding the existing road. Located adjacent to this road are the Orono School District schools, the Orono Ice Arena, a child care center, ball fields, a medical office building, and Orono City Hall. Due to these factors, this segment was identified as a high priority and was included in Orono’s 16-Year Transportation Capital Improvement Plan as a street to be reconstructed. This report describes the improvements required to both the streets and utilities to adequately serve the area. The proposed utility improvements are presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and two options for the proposed street improvements are presented in Figures 5 (turn lanes) and 6 (roundabouts). Also included in the report are several optional improvements that would increase the safety, functionality, and/or aesthetics of the area. A cost analysis and allocation are also discussed and presented in the Cost Analysis and Funding Options sections. The costs of the proposed improvements are presented in the Appendix. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 6 of 42] PROJECT LOCATION SIXTH AVE N (CSAH 6) KELLEY PKWY OLD HIGHWAY 12 (CSAH 112) OL D C R Y S T A L B A Y R D WI L L O W D R N BNSF RR TH 12 Jam e s t o w n R d HO M E S T E A D T R Silverview Dr DICKEY LAKE DR Willow View Dr COMM:DATE:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG1.DWG 10/20/10 LOCATION PLAN ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 139-10047-0 1FIGURE: 500 10000 Horizontal Scale In Feet Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 7 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 5 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 2.0 Summary and Recommendations The replacement of sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer, and the reconstruction of Old Crystal Bay Road is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The following recommendations are presented for consideration by the Orono City Council: 1)That this report be adopted as the guide for reconstruction of the street and utilities on Old Crystal Bay Road between CSAH 112 and CSAH 6. 2)That the City selects a street design that most fully meets their needs. 3) That the City conducts a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project prior to awarding the project. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 8 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 6 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 3.0 Sanitary Sewer Improvements The existing gravity sanitary sewer was installed in approximately 1962 and runs along the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road from Old Highway 12 to approximately 1300’ north of Old Highway 12. The sewer is 8 inches in diameter and constructed of vitrified clay pipe. Three forcemains connect to the existing gravity sewer at the north end of the system. All flows are routed to the south and connect to the sanitary sewer at Old Highway 12. In August, 2010, the City televised the existing sanitary sewer in Old Crystal Bay Road. The televising video and associated report revealed several concerns with the existing sewer, including mineral deposits and infiltration. The proposed sanitary sewer improvements are shown in Figure 2. The proposed improvements include completely replacing the existing gravity sewer north of Old Highway 12. We are recommending sewer replacement based on the age, typical life expectancy, and existing condition of the system. All sanitary sewer services will also be replaced between the main and the right-of-way line. There are two small diameter pressure sewers on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road on the northern end of the project. A two-inch HDPE pressure sewer serves the Jamestown Road neighborhood and was installed in 2005. It runs along Old Crystal Bay Road from CSAH 6 to the existing gravity sewer manhole approximately 1600 feet south of CSAH 6. In addition, a two-inch HDPE forcemain carries flows from a lift station at the Orono Ice Arena to this same manhole. It was installed in 1997. There have been no known issues with either of these systems. Therefore, given the relative age and condition, it is not recommended to replace these pressure sewer pipes as part of this project. Cost estimates for the proposed sanitary sewer improvements are presented in the Appendix. 3.1 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Described below are two additional sanitary sewer improvement options that may be included as part of this project. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2. The City should determine which of the options, if any, it would like to be included in the project. A cost summary of each of these items is included in Section 7.0 (Cost Analysis). Cost estimates for each of these additional improvement options are provided in the Appendix. A. MEDINA FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT In 1981, a four-inch forcemain was constructed to serve the Morningside Addition in Medina, just north of CSAH 6. The pipe material is not known, although it is likely ductile iron pipe. The forcemain runs west along CSAH 6 to Old Crystal Bay Road. It then runs along the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road to a gravity manhole approximately 1600 feet south of CSAH 6. Given the age of this forcemain and its location under the proposed road, we recommend the segment located along Old Crystal Bay Road be replaced as part of this project. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 9 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 7 B. OLD HIGHWAY 12 SEWER REPLACEMENT This existing gravity sewer segment was installed in approximately 1962 and runs along the south side of Old Highway 12 from Old Crystal Bay Road to the Orono/Long Lake municipal boundary, approximately 1500’ east of Old Crystal Bay Road. The sewer is 8 inches in diameter and constructed of truss pipe. The sewer is currently undersized for the planned future service area. In addition, the pipe is in poor condition. The televising report completed in August 2010 identified several locations where the pipe is cracked, as well as several areas where the inner layer of the pipe has separated from the outer layer. Therefore, we recommend that this segment of sanitary sewer be replaced as part of this project. Given the close proximity of the sanitary sewer to the existing roadway, as well as to the existing Metropolitan Council forcemain and other private utilities, we recommend utilizing pipe bursting, a trenchless technology, to replace the sanitary sewer. All sanitary sewer services will also be replaced between the main and the right-of-way line. Constructing the additional sanitary sewer improvements A and B as part of the larger street and utility project will likely be more efficient and cost-effective than completing them as stand-alone projects. It should also be noted that the additional improvement options A and B are covered in the 1981 Sanitary Sewer Construction and Service Agreement between Orono, Medina, and Long Lake. The City of Medina should be contacted to discuss the cost sharing responsibilities identified in the agreement. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 10 of 42] DATE:COMM:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG2.DWG SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 2010 139-10047-0 2FIGURE 125 2500 Horizontal Scale In Feet >> Base Sanitary Sewer Improvements Optional Sanitary Sewer Improvements (CSAH 112) FM FM Optional Forcemain Improvements >> Existing Sanitary Sewer FM FM Existing Forcemain Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 11 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 9 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 4.0 Water Main Improvements The majority of the existing water main was also installed in approximately 1962, with the northern portion (approximately 700 feet) replaced in 1997 when the Ice Arena was constructed. The water main runs along the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road from Old Highway 12 to approximately 280 feet south of 6th Avenue. The older portion of the water main is 8 inches in diameter and is cast iron pipe. Given the age of this pipe, we recommend it be replaced as part of this project. The newer (northern) portion of the water main is 12 inches in diameter and is constructed of ductile iron pipe. We do not recommend this portion be replaced as part of this project. The proposed water main improvements are shown in Figure 3. These improvements include replacing the existing 8-inch cast iron water main with 8-inch PVC water main. In addition, all hydrants and gate valves along the older segments will be replaced, and water services will be replaced between the main and the right-of-way line. Water service will be maintained throughout the project by using temporary above-ground water mains. Individual users will be notified and may experience short disruptions in service as they are switched from the existing system to the temporary system and back to the permanent system. Cost estimates for the proposed water main improvements are presented in the Appendix. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 12 of 42] DATE:COMM:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG2.DWG WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 2010 139-10047-0 3FIGURE 125 2500 Horizontal Scale In Feet l l Proposed Water Main Existing Water Main l l Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 13 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 11 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 5.0 Storm Sewer Improvements The existing street consists mainly of a rural section served by drainage ditches, culverts, and a minimal amount of storm sewer. The existing stormwater system generally outlets runoff at three points: to the wetland north of CSAH 6, to the wetland just north of City Hall, and to the east to a ditch and existing storm sewer along the north side of CSAH 112. The latter two outlet points ultimately outlet to the Stone Bay regional pond between Kelley Parkway and CSAH 112. Under the proposed improvements, most of the roadway will be reconstructed with an urban street section with curb and gutter and storm sewer. The northerly 600’ is proposed to remain a rural section with ditches to convey stormwater. The outlet points and drainage areas will generally remain the same. The proposed storm sewer improvements are shown in Figure 4. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requires stormwater treatment to be incorporated into a project if there is a proposed net increase in hardcover. Given that the proposed improvements to Old Crystal Bay Road consist of adding turn lanes and/or roundabouts, there will be a small increase in hardcover (less than 1 acre). Therefore, we must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address potential water resource impacts as a result of the proposed improvements. Proposed BMPs will limit the amount of impervious surface, promote on-site filtration, control flow rates, and limit sediment and pollutant discharge from the site. Proposed locations for BMPs are shown in Figure 4. Potential BMPs are listed below. RURAL SECTION A series of ditches and culverts will convey runoff from the road north to the existing culvert under CSAH 6. BMPs such as filtration basins/rain gardens can be incorporated into the ditches to minimize runoff rates and sediment discharge. The BMPs can be constructed adjacent to the roadway within the existing right-of-way. URBAN SECTION There is a high point in the road approximately 1400’ south of CSAH 6. Runoff to the north of the high point up to the northernmost Orono Middle School/High School driveway (approximately 600’ of roadway) will be routed through proposed storm sewer into the existing storm sewer in the Orono Middle School parking lot. It will then be routed to the existing pond just north of the Middle School parking lot. The size of the pond may need to be expanded to accommodate this additional runoff. Runoff to the south of the high point will be collected in storm sewer and routed south to CSAH 112 and then east to an existing 24” – 30” storm sewer pipe that runs parallel to CSAH 112. The 24” portion of this pipe is not large enough to convey the additional runoff, so it will be upsized to 30” pipe. This pipe then outlets into the Stone Bay regional pond between Kelley Parkway and CSAH 112. The pond has been sized to treat this runoff from Old Crystal Bay Road. We have identified the area in the northeast Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 14 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 12 quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Kelley Parkway as a potential area for installing BMPs, such as a filtration basin or rain garden. In some areas along Old Crystal Bay Road, the road elevation is higher than adjacent parking lots and green areas. Therefore, it is likely that several ditches and culverts will be required behind the back of the proposed curb to collect the runoff from these low areas. The culvert that outlets to the east to the City Hall wetland will be replaced. In addition, rain gardens and other linear BMPs are proposed adjacent to and within these ditches to provide treatment to the runoff prior to it entering the wetlands. Cost estimates for the proposed storm sewer improvements are presented in the Appendix. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 15 of 42] DATE:COMM:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG4.DWG STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 2010 139-10047-0 4FIGURE 125 2500 Horizontal Scale In Feet >>>> Proposed Storm Sewer Proposed Ditch >>>> Existing Storm Sewer BMP Location OPTION 1: TURN LANES OPTION 2: ROUNDABOUTS Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 16 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 14 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 6.0 Street Improvements Old Crystal Bay Road was reconstructed in 1962 in conjunction with the utility installation. The current roadway consists of a rural section with two drive lanes and shoulders constructed of gravel or bituminous. Based on the record plans, the existing street section consists of approximately 4 inches of bituminous over a 4-inch gravel base and an 8-inch sand-gravel subbase. Since it was reconstructed, no major rehabilitation projects have been conducted on the road between Old Highway 12 and CSAH 6. Maintenance and rehabilitation has consisted of seal coating and spot repairs/patching. This has resulted in uneven wear and settling throughout the length of the road. In addition to the poor physical condition of the road, several other issues including traffic congestion and pedestrian safety were identified in a Traffic and Safety Study that was prepared in August, 2010 for the City of Orono. The Study identified several proposed roadway configurations that would eliminate or lessen the severity of these issues. Two of the configurations were chosen as the preferred options and have been analyzed as part of this report: Option 1 is the basic option consisting of adding turn lanes at several driveways and intersections, and Option 2 includes two roundabouts in addition to several turn lanes. See Figure 7 for the proposed typical street sections. Cost estimates for each of the options are presented in the Appendix. Under both of these options, it is likely that several utility poles will need to be relocated to accommodate the new roadway. We will work with the owners of these poles during the relocation process. We don’t anticipate any additional costs associated with relocating the poles. OPTION 1: TURN LANES Option 1 consists of constructing turn lanes at the critical intersections to provide additional vehicle storage for pick-up/drop-off, and to minimize back-ups behind left-turning vehicles. In addition, three driveway entrances would either be closed or restricted to right-out to limit right-angle conflicts. There are no medians in this option. See Figure 5 for the proposed layout of Option 1. OPTION 2: ROUNDABOUTS Option 2 consists of constructing two roundabouts: one just north of Kelley Parkway at the City Hall/Elementary School driveway, and the other at the south driveway to the Middle and High School parking lots. The proposed roundabouts have a smaller diameter radius than a standard roundabout in order to limit the right-of-way acquisition that will be necessary for construction. In addition to the roundabouts, several turn lanes will be provided. There are also proposed 4-foot wide raised concrete medians along the section of the road between the two roundabouts (approximately 1200 feet). The median would function as a barrier to unwanted pedestrian roadway crossings, and potentially reduce vehicle speeds. It is anticipated that approximately 17,200 square feet of right-of-way would need to be acquired from the City and the School District for the construction of the roundabouts. See Figure 6 for the proposed layout of Option 2, as well as the approximate location of the additional right-of-way. For additional traffic information and strategies, see the August, 2010 Traffic and Safety Study. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 17 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 15 6.1 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Listed below are several additional roadway improvement options that may be included as part of this project. The City should determine which of the items, if any, it would like to be included in the project. A cost summary of each of these items is included in Section 7.0 (Cost Analysis). Cost estimates for each of these additional improvements options are provided in the Appendix. A. ADDITIONAL ROUNDABOUT We have included a cost estimate to add an additional (third) roundabout at the north driveway entrances to the Middle School and High School. This intersection provides full access for the Middle School and High School bus circulation routes as well as access to two parking lots. A signed and marked crosswalk is also located here. This optional roundabout would improve circulation and safety through the intersection. See Figure 6 for the location of this additional roundabout. B. CITY HALL PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS The City Hall parking lot is currently in poor condition, mainly due to poor drainage. Optional improvements to the parking lot include reconstructing the northerly half of the parking lot. See Figure 6 for the location of these improvements. C. WEST SIDEWALK Currently Orono High School students utilitize several parking lots on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. However, there is no sidewalk connecting these lots to the High School, creating an unsafe pedestrian environment. Constructing a sidewalk on the west side of the new roadway would provide more favorable conditions for both pedestrians and bikers, and encourage walking and biking to school. This sidewalk would be eight feet wide and constructed of either bituminous or concrete. If this option is chosen, the City should decide if it should be constructed of bituminous or concrete. This optional sidewalk would be located primarily on School District property adjacent to the existing right-of-way. The proposed location of this sidewalk is shown in Figures 5 and 6. D. ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS The base cost estimate includes implementing zebra-striped crosswalks and standard pedestrian crossing signage at each intersection. However, there are several other features that can be implemented at crosswalks to increase pedestrian safety by attracting more attention to the pedestrian crossings. This report includes three optional improvements that may be used in conjunction with the basic zebra crosswalk and signage. More than one option may be chosen. Option A: In-Street Pedestrian Signs These signs can be placed in the roadway at crosswalks to provide extra emphasis to the crosswalk. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 18 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 16 Option B: Imprinted Pavement Demarcating crosswalks with stamped concrete or brick pavers creates a different look and attracts attention to the crosswalk. There is a large amount of flexibility in the patterns and designs. Option C: LED Signing Pedestrian signs with internally illuminated LED lights are placed at a crosswalk and provide additional warning to motorists of a pedestrian crossing the roadway. The blinking lights can be activated by a push-button or by passive detection. E.12’ WIDE MEDIANS This option allows for a twelve foot wide median to be constructed between the two roundabouts, a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. A twelve foot median would create more of a deterrent to mid- block crossings than a four foot wide median. It would also provide space for landscaping items such as plantings and architectural elements to both enhance the aesthetic appeal of the project and act as an additional deterrent to pedestrians. If this option is chosen, one of the landscaping options in the following section should be chosen as well. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 19 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 17 F. ENHANCED LANDSCAPING The base street cost estimates include basic restoration with seed and sod. The following additional streetscape options would allow for landscaping items such as trees, plantings and architectural elements to both enhance the aesthetic appeal of the project and deter pedestrians from crossing the median. The following pages depict and describe three general streetscape options for median and roundabout landscaping. It the project moves forward, they should be used as a general guide when choosing the final landscaping scheme and the associated cost for the landscaping once design has begun. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 20 of 42] Streetscape Alternatives Option A Median TreaTMenTLineal Foot Cost: $39.35Total LF. of Median Treatment: 2,160 lf.Total Cost for Corridor: $85,000 INCLUDED IN MEDIAN TREATMENT:• dense landscaping to deter mid-block pedestrian crossing• perennials and ornamental grasses • modified planting soil • irrigation allowance Boulevard TreaTMenTSquare Foot Cost: $.96Total SF. of Boulevard Treatment: 67,860 sf.Total Cost for Corridor: $65,000 INCLUDED IN BOULEVARD TREATMENT:• street trees• modified planting soil for trees roundaBouT TreaTMenTSquare Foot Cost: $9.40Total SF. of Roundabout Treatment: 5,320 sf.Total Cost for Corridor: $50,000 INCLUDED IN ROUNDABOUT TREATMENT:• street trees• perennials and ornamental grasses • modified planting soil • irrigation allowance opTion a ToTal STreeTScape coSTS: $200,000 - $230,000 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 21 of 42] Streetscape Alternatives Option B Median TreaTMenTLineal Foot Cost: $74.07Total LF. of Median Treatment: 2,160 lf.Total Cost for Corridor: $160,000 INCLUDED IN MEDIAN TREATMENT:• architectural elements (i.e. corten steel with cut-outs, ornamental fencing)• perennials and ornamental grasses, • modified planting soil, • irrigation allowance Boulevard TreaTMenTSquare Foot Cost: $.96Total SF. of Boulevard Treatment: 67,860 sf.Total Cost for Corridor: $65,000 INCLUDED IN BOULEVARD TREATMENT:• street trees• modified planting soil for trees roundaBouT TreaTMenTSquare Foot Cost: $18.79Total SF. of Roundabout Treatment: 5,320 sf.Total Cost for Corridor: $100,000 INCLUDED IN ROUNDABOUT TREATMENT:• architectural elements (i.e. corten steel with cut-outs, ornamental fencing)• street trees• perennials and ornamental grasses, • modified planting soil, • irrigation allowance opTion B ToTal STreeTScape coSTS: $325,000 - $385,000 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 22 of 42] Streetscape Alternatives Option C Median TreaTMenTLineal Foot Cost: $152.77Total LF. of Median Treatment: 2,160 lf.Total Cost for Corridor: $330,000 INCLUDED IN MEDIAN TREATMENT:• architectural elements (i.e. decorative raised curb, banner poles/lights, civic signage, dense landscaping)• perennials and ornamental grasses, • modified planting soil, • irrigation allowance Boulevard TreaTMenTSquare Foot Cost: $1.98Total SF. of Boulevard Treatment: 67,860 sf.Total Cost for Corridor: $135,000 INCLUDED IN BOULEVARD TREATMENT:• perennials and ornamental grasses • street trees• modified planting soil for trees roundaBouT TreaTMenTSquare Foot Cost: $28.19Total SF. of Roundabout Treatment: 5,320 sf.Total Cost for Corridor: $150,000 INCLUDED IN ROUNDABOUT TREATMENT:• architectural elements (i.e. decorative raised curb, banner poles/lights, civic signage, dense landscaping)• street trees• perennials and ornamental grasses, • modified planting soil, • irrigation allowance opTion c ToTal STreeTScape coSTS: $605,000 - $710,000 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 23 of 42] MA T C H L I N E K E L L E Y P K W Y O L D H I G H W A Y 1 2 ( C S A H 1 1 2 ) OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CITY HALL DAY CARE OPTIONAL SIDEWALK PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY OPTIONAL PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS MA T C H L I N E S I X T H A V E N ( C S A H 6 ) ICE ARENA BASEBALL FIELDSMIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD END CURB AND GUTTER/ BEGIN RURAL SECTION EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SHOULDER OPTIONAL SIDEWALK PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 50 1000 Horizontal Scale In Feet DATE:COMM:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG5.DWG STREET IMPROVEMENTS: OPTION 1 - TURN LANES ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 2010 139-10047-0 5FIGURE Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 24 of 42] MA T C H L I N E K E L L E Y P K W Y O L D H I G H W A Y 1 2 ( C S A H 1 1 2 ) OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CITY HALL DAY CARE OPTIONAL SIDEWALK PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY OPTIONAL PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS MA T C H L I N E S I X T H A V E N ( C S A H 6 ) ICE ARENA BASEBALL FIELDSMIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD END CURB AND GUTTER/ BEGIN RURAL SECTION PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SHOULDER PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER OPTIONAL SIDEWALK OPTIONAL ROUNDABOUT ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 50 1000 Horizontal Scale In Feet DATE:COMM:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG6.DWG STREET IMPROVEMENTS: OPTION 2 - ROUNDABOUTS ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 2010 139-10047-0 6FIGURE Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 25 of 42] COMM:DATE:K:\139\139100470\CAD\DWG\13910047_FIG7.DWG 10/20/10 TYPICAL SECTIONS ORONO, MINNESOTA OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 139-10047-0 7FIGURE: Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 26 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 24 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 7.0 Cost Analysis Detailed cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in the Appendix. The cost estimates consist of a base cost, which includes the necessary sanitary, water main, storm sewer, and basic street improvements, and separate cost estimates for the optional improvements. These costs include a 5 percent contingency allowance, a 20 percent allowance for design, inspection, legal and administration costs, and a 5 percent allowance for capitalized interest and bonding costs during construction. The estimated costs shown in this report are based on 2010 unit prices and can be related to the ENR Construction Cost Index for October, 2010 of 8920.45. A summary of the estimated costs is presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below. Table 1 breaks down the base cost for Option 1. It includes all necessary costs for reconstructing the street with curb and gutter and turn lanes, as well as replacing all the necessary sanitary sewer and water main within the project area, and installing the required storm sewer and stormwater BMPs to meet local requirements. Table 2 breaks down the base cost for Option 2. It includes all necessary costs for reconstructing the street with curb and gutter and two roundabouts in addition to the necessary utility improvements. The City should choose either Option 1 (Table 1)or Option 2 (Table 2) to be constructed as part of this project. Table 3 includes a list of all additional improvements that may be done as part of this project. The City should choose none of the items, all of the items, or any combination of the items, with the exception of the Additional Roundabout Option. This option should only be chosen if Base Option 2 (Roundabouts) is chosen. TABLE 1– PROPOSED BASE IMPROVEMENT COST SUMMARY – OPTION 1: TURN LANES Description Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer $184,340 Water Main $204,295 Storm Sewer $358,384 Street Improvements $2,173,156 TOTAL $2,920,175 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 27 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 25 TABLE 2– PROPOSED BASE IMPROVEMENT COST SUMMARY – OPTION 2: ROUNDABOUTS Description Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer $184,340 Water Main $204,295 Storm Sewer $355,186 Street Improvements $2,302,900 TOTAL $3,046,721 TABLE 3– PROPOSED ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS COST SUMMARY Description Estimated Cost Medina Forcemain Replacement $117,000 Sanitary Sewer Replacement–Old Highway 12 $219,492 Additional Roundabout (Option 2 Only)$145,392 City Hall Parking Lot Improvements $41,360 Sidewalk along W side of Old Crystal Bay Road Concrete $110,743 Bituminous $95,002 Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings Option A: In-Street Pedestrian Signs $15,600 Option B: Imprinted Pavement $62,400 Option C: LED Signing $109,200 12’ Median $33,784 Additional Median/Roundabout Landscaping Option A:$260,000 Option B:$422,500 Option C:$799,500 The cost estimates included in this report do not include the cost of obtaining easements or additional right-of-way required for the project. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 28 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 26 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 8.0 Funding Options 8.1 STATE AID FUNDS Old Crystal Bay Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid road. Therefore, State Aid funds may be used to fund most of the work related to the roadway reconstruction and storm sewer installation. 8.2 CITY UTILITY FUNDS The majority of the sanitary sewer and water main improvements, as well as the portion of the storm sewer improvements not covered by State Aid will be funded by the City’s respective enterprise funds for each utility. 8.3 CITY OF MEDINA A portion of the proposed sanitary sewer improvements would be funded by the City of Medina under the Sanitary Sewer Construction and Service Agreement between Orono, Medina, and Long Lake dated August 10, 1981. Under this agreement, Medina is responsible for a percentage of the costs associated with the Medina forcemain replacement, as well as all the gravity sewer replacement proposed in this report. The costs should be allocated between Orono and Medina as described in the Agreement. 8.4 GRANTS There may be an opportunity to obtain one or more grants for this project. One such grant is Safe Routes to School. This program provides funds to schools and municipalities to identify, build, and preserve safer routes so children can walk and bike to school. If this project moves forward, we will explore additional grant options available. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 29 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Page 27 CITY OF ORONO – OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 9.0 Project Schedule The improvements described in this report should be constructed as one project. The schedule shown below shows a possible timeline to begin construction in May of 2011. Council Receives Feasibility Report/Orders Plans and Specs October 25, 2010 Submit Plans to Mn/DOT for State Aid Review Process February, 2010 Council Approves Plans/Authorizes Bidding March, 2011 Open Bids April, 2011 Award Contract May, 2011 Begin Construction May 2011 Final Completion September 2011 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 30 of 42] City of Orono Project No: 000139-10047-0 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction A-1 APPENDIX Cost Estimates Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 31 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Option 1 - Turn Lanes Storm Sewer Improvements Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Connect to existing storm CBMH EA 2 1,500.00$3,000.00$ Remove existing storm sewer pipe LF 1400 5.00$7,000.00$ 48" diameter catch basin manhole EA 13 1,900.00$24,700.00$ 60" diameter catch basin manhole EA 5 2,250.00$11,250.00$ 2' x 3' catch basin EA 12 1,500.00$18,000.00$ 15" RCP storm sewer LF 1830 26.00$47,580.00$ 18" RCP storm sewer LF 420 30.00$12,600.00$ 21" RCP storm sewer LF 350 35.00$12,250.00$ 24" RCP storm sewer LF 370 40.00$14,800.00$ 30" RCP storm sewer LF 700 45.00$31,500.00$ 15" FES EA 24 750.00$18,000.00$ Rain Garden EA 6 7,500.00$45,000.00$ Pond Expansion LS 1 25,000.00$25,000.00$ Class 3 riprap CY 50 100.00$5,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 275,680.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 82,704.00$ Total Estimated Cost 358,384.00$ Street Improvements Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Mobilization LS 1 15,000.00$15,000.00$ Traffic control LS 1 7,500.00$7,500.00$ Saw cut bituminous surface LF 720 5.00$3,600.00$ Remove bituminous pavement SY 14030 2.00$28,060.00$ Remove concrete pavement SY 150 5.00$750.00$ Remove concrete curb and gutter LF 300 3.50$1,050.00$ Remove bituminous path SF 1500 2.00$3,000.00$ Common excavation - street CY 14200 10.00$142,000.00$ Subgrade excavation CY 2000 15.00$30,000.00$ Subgrade prep SY 21295 1.50$31,942.50$ Class 5 aggregate base TN 27400 16.00$438,400.00$ 4" perforated PVC draintile LF 10420 4.00$41,680.00$ Bituminous base course mixture TN 4580 65.00$297,700.00$ Bituminous wear course mixture TN 2290 65.00$148,850.00$ Bituminous material for tack coat GAL 940 2.00$1,880.00$ Geotextile fabric SY 21295 1.75$37,266.25$ Concrete curb & gutter LF 5210 11.00$57,310.00$ 4" Concrete sidewalk SF 200 3.50$700.00$ Concrete pedestrian curb ramp SF 200 6.00$1,200.00$ Truncated Dome Panel SF 32 35.00$1,120.00$ 7" thick commercial concrete driveway apron SY 150 8.00$1,200.00$ Bituminous Trail SY 170 30.00$5,100.00$ Lighting LS 1 240,000.00$240,000.00$ Signal modification LS 1 12,000.00$12,000.00$ 4" solid line, white (epoxy)LF 7980 0.50$3,990.00$ 4" double line, yellow (epoxy)LF 13680 0.50$6,840.00$ Zebra crosswalk, white (epoxy)SF 1584 5.00$7,920.00$ Sign Panels SF 500 30.00$15,000.00$ Pavement Message EA 53 200.00$10,600.00$ Erosion and Sediment Control LS 1 50,000.00$50,000.00$ Restoration LS 1 30,000.00$30,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 1,671,658.75$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 501,497.63$ Total Estimated Cost 2,173,156.38$ Summary of Improvements - Base Cost Storm Sewer 358,384.00$ Street 2,173,156.38$ Total 2,531,540.38$ A-2 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 32 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Option 2 - Roundabouts Storm Sewer Improvements Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Connect to existing storm CBMH EA 2 1,500.00$3,000.00$ Remove existing storm sewer pipe LF 1400 5.00$7,000.00$ 48" diameter catch basin manhole EA 13 1,900.00$24,700.00$ 60" diameter catch basin manhole EA 5 2,250.00$11,250.00$ 2' x 3' catch basin EA 12 1,500.00$18,000.00$ 15" RCP storm sewer LF 1820 26.00$47,320.00$ 18" RCP storm sewer LF 350 30.00$10,500.00$ 21" RCP storm sewer LF 450 35.00$15,750.00$ 24" RCP storm sewer LF 280 40.00$11,200.00$ 30" RCP storm sewer LF 700 45.00$31,500.00$ 15" FES EA 24 750.00$18,000.00$ Rain Garden EA 6 7,500.00$45,000.00$ Pond Expansion LS 1 25,000.00$25,000.00$ Class 3 riprap CY 50 100.00$5,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 273,220.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 81,966.00$ Total Estimated Cost 355,186.00$ Street Improvements Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Mobilization LS 1 15,000.00$15,000.00$ Traffic control LS 1 7,500.00$7,500.00$ Saw cut bituminous surface LF 740 5.00$3,700.00$ Remove bituminous pavement SY 14500 2.00$29,000.00$ Remove concrete pavement SY 335 5.00$1,675.00$ Remove concrete curb and gutter LF 830 3.50$2,905.00$ Remove bituminous path SF 3300 2.00$6,600.00$ Common excavation - street CY 13565 10.00$135,650.00$ Subgrad excavation CY 2000 15.00$30,000.00$ Subgrade prep SY 20465 1.50$30,697.50$ Class 5 aggregate base TN 26400 16.00$422,400.00$ 4" perforated PVC draintile LF 21280 4.00$85,120.00$ Bituminous base course mixture TN 4000 65.00$260,000.00$ Bituminous wear course mixture TN 2000 65.00$130,000.00$ Bituminous material for tack coat GAL 820 2.00$1,640.00$ Geotextile fabric SY 20465 1.75$35,813.75$ 7" Concrete Truck Apron SY 230 20.00$4,600.00$ Concrete curb & gutter LF 10640 11.00$117,040.00$ 4" Concrete Median SF 3400 3.00$10,200.00$ 4" Concrete sidewalk SF 200 3.50$700.00$ Concrete pedestrian curb ramp SF 200 6.00$1,200.00$ Truncated dome panel SF 32 35.00$1,120.00$ 7" thick commercial concrete driveway apron SF 150 8.00$1,200.00$ Bituminous trail SY 410 30.00$12,300.00$ Lighting LS 1 288,000.00$288,000.00$ Signal Modification LS 1 12,000.00$12,000.00$ 4" solid line, white (epoxy)LF 9100 0.50$4,550.00$ 4" double line, yellow (epoxy)LF 3900 0.50$1,950.00$ Zebra crosswalk, white (epoxy)SF 1500 5.00$7,500.00$ Sign Panels SF 700 30.00$21,000.00$ Pavement Message EA 52 200.00$10,400.00$ Erosion and Sediment Control LS 1 50,000.00$50,000.00$ Restoration LS 1 30,000.00$30,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 1,771,461.25$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 531,438.38$ Total Estimated Cost 2,302,899.63$ Summary of Improvements - Base Cost Storm Sewer 355,186.00$ Street 2,302,899.63$ Total 2,658,085.63$ A-3 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 33 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Base Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Sanitary Sewer Improvements Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Remove sanitary manhole EA 7 500.00$3,500.00$ Remove existing 8" sanitary sewer LF 1570 5.00$7,850.00$ Bypass Pumping LS 1 8,000.00$8,000.00$ 8" PVC sanitary sewer, 10-15' deep LF 870 45.00$39,150.00$ 8" PVC sanitary sewer, 15-20' deep LF 700 50.00$35,000.00$ 6" PVC sanitary sewer LF 100 45.00$4,500.00$ Install 48" diameter manhole EA 8 2,200.00$17,600.00$ Extra depth manhole LF 85 120.00$10,200.00$ Connect to existing sanitary sewer EA 8 2,000.00$16,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 141,800.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 42,540.00$ Total Estimated Cost 184,340.00$ Water Main Improvements Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Temporary water system LS 1 20,000.00$20,000.00$ Remove existing water main LF 2320 5.00$11,600.00$ Remove existing hydrant EA 6 500.00$3,000.00$ 8" PVC water main LF 2200 25.00$55,000.00$ 6" PVC water main LF 20 20.00$400.00$ 6" DIP water main LF 100 50.00$5,000.00$ 8" GV and Box EA 5 1,750.00$8,750.00$ 6" GV and Box EA 7 1,500.00$10,500.00$ 8" 45 Degree Bend EA 2 250.00$500.00$ 8" x 8" Tee EA 4 600.00$2,400.00$ 8" x 6" Tee EA 8 500.00$4,000.00$ Connect to existing water main EA 9 2,000.00$18,000.00$ Install hydrant EA 6 3,000.00$18,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 157,150.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 47,145.00$ Total Estimated Cost 204,295.00$ Summary of Improvements - Base Utilities Sanitary Sewer 184,340.00$ Water Main 204,295.00$ Total 388,635.00$ A-4 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 34 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Optional Medina Forcemain Replacement Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Mobilization LS 1 2,500.00$2,500.00$ Remove Existing 4" FM LF 1850 5.00$9,250.00$ Remove MH EA 1 500.00$500.00$ Bypass Pumping LS 1 5,000.00$5,000.00$ 4" PVC Forcemain LF 1850 35.00$64,750.00$ Cleanout Manhole EA 1 5,000.00$5,000.00$ Connect to existing forcemain EA 1 1,500.00$1,500.00$ Connect to existing sanitary sewer EA 1 1,500.00$1,500.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 90,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 27,000.00$ Total Estimated Cost 117,000.00$ A-5 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 35 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Optional Old Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Mobilization LS 1 5,000.00$5,000.00$ Remove sanitary manhole EA 4 500.00$2,000.00$ Remove existing 8" sanitary sewer LF 1450 5.00$7,250.00$ Remove sanitary sewer service LF 50 4.00$200.00$ Bypass Pumping LS 1 6,000.00$6,000.00$ Abandon sanitary sewer pipe LF 250 5.00$1,250.00$ Abandon sanitary manhole EA 1 500.00$500.00$ Jack 24" steel pipe under TH 112 LF 100 300.00$30,000.00$ 8" PVC sanitary sewer pipe, 15-20' deep LF 200 60.00$12,000.00$ Pipe burst 8" Truss Pipe to 8" PVC LF 1450 40.00$58,000.00$ Install 48" diameter manhole EA 6 3,000.00$18,000.00$ 8" x 6" PVC Wye/Service Connection EA 2 2,500.00$5,000.00$ 6" Sanitary Sewer Service Pipe LF 100 25.00$2,500.00$ Extra depth manhole LF 72 120.00$8,640.00$ Connect to existing sanitary sewer EA 5 1,000.00$5,000.00$ Restoration LS 1 7,500.00$7,500.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 168,840.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 50,652.00$ Total Estimated Cost 219,492.00$ A-6 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 36 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Optional Additional Roundabout Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 215 3.50$752.50$ Sawcut bituminous LF 90 5.00$450.00$ Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 430 2.00$860.00$ Concrete curb and gutter LF 1850 11.00$20,350.00$ Common Excavation CY 740 10.00$7,400.00$ Geotextile Fabric SY 1110 1.75$1,942.50$ Subgrade Prep SY 1110 1.50$1,665.00$ Class 5 Aggregate Base TN 1220 16.00$19,520.00$ 7" Concrete Truck Apron SY 360 20.00$7,200.00$ Bituminous Trail SY 90 30.00$2,700.00$ Roundabout Landscaping LS 1 25,000.00$25,000.00$ Lighting LS 1 24,000.00$24,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 111,840.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 33,552.00$ Total Estimated Cost 145,392.00$ A-7 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 37 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Preliminary Cost Estimate - Feasibility Report Optional City Hall Parking Lot Improvements Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Reclaim bituminous pavement SY 1,350 2.50$3,375.00$ Site Grading/Final Shaping LS 1 3,000.00$3,000.00$ Common Excavation CY 300 18.00$5,400.00$ Bituminous Non-Wearing Course Mixture TN 165 65.00$10,725.00$ Bituminous Wearing Course Mixture TN 125 70.00$8,750.00$ 4" Solid Line White Paint LF 620 0.75$465.00$ Pavement Message, Handicapped Symbol Paint EA 1 100.00$100.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 31,815.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 9,544.50$ Total Estimated Cost 41,359.50$ A-8 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 38 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Preliminary Cost Estimate - Feasibility Report Optional Sidewalk Improvements 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Common excavation CY 438 10.00$4,380.00$ Class 5 gravel base TN 480 20.00$9,600.00$ 4" Concrete Sidewalk SF 17290 3.50$60,515.00$ Concrete Pedestrian Curb Ramp SF 312 6.00$1,872.00$ Truncated Dome Panel SF 52 35.00$1,820.00$ Restoration LS 1 7,000.00$7,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 85,187.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 25,556.10$ Total Estimated Cost 110,743.10$ 8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Common excavation CY 815 10.00$8,150.00$ Class 5 gravel base TN 1,195 20.00$23,900.00$ Geotextile Fabric SY 2,445 1.75$4,278.75$ Bituminous Base TN 240 70.00$16,800.00$ Bituminous Wear TN 180 70.00$12,600.00$ Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 100 3.50$350.00$ Restoration LS 1 7,000.00$7,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 73,078.75$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 21,923.63$ Total Estimated Cost 95,002.38$ A-9 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 39 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Optional Pedestrian Crossing Improvements OPTION A: In-Street Pedestrian Signs Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price In-Street Pedestrian Signs Crosswalk 12 1,000.00$12,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 12,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 3,600.00$ Total Estimated Cost 15,600.00$ OPTION B: Imprinted Pavement Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Imprinted Pavement Crosswalk 12 4,000.00$48,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 48,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 14,400.00$ Total Estimated Cost 62,400.00$ OPTION C: LED Signing Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price LED Signing Crosswalk 12 7,000.00$84,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 84,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 25,200.00$ Total Estimated Cost 109,200.00$ A-10 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 40 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Optional 12' Median Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Common Excavation CY 1500 10.00$15,000.00$ Concrete Median SF -3000 3.00$(9,000.00)$ Concrete Maintenance Strip SF 3000 5.00$15,000.00$ Subgrade Prep SY 3325 1.50$4,987.50$ Estimated Construction Cost 25,987.50$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 7,796.25$ Total Estimated Cost 33,783.75$ A-11 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 41 of 42] Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Cost Estimate for Improvements Optional Landscaping Improvements OPTION A: Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Median Treatment LS 1 85,000.00$85,000.00$ Boulevard Treatment LS 1 80,000.00$65,000.00$ Roundabout Treatment LS 1 50,000.00$50,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 200,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 60,000.00$ Total Estimated Cost 260,000.00$ OPTION B: Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Median Treatment LS 1 160,000.00$160,000.00$ Boulevard Treatment LS 1 80,000.00$65,000.00$ Roundabout Treatment LS 1 100,000.00$100,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 325,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 97,500.00$ Total Estimated Cost 422,500.00$ OPTION C: Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price Median Treatment LS 1 330,000.00$330,000.00$ Boulevard Treatment LS 1 150,000.00$135,000.00$ Roundabout Treatment LS 1 150,000.00$150,000.00$ Estimated Construction Cost 615,000.00$ +30% Contingencies, Fees, Capitalized Interest, and Bonding 184,500.00$ Total Estimated Cost 799,500.00$ A-12 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Feasability Study [Page 42 of 42] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 1 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 2 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 3 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 4 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 5 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 6 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 7 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 8 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 9 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 10 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 11 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 12 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 13 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 14 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 15 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 16 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 17 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 18 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 19 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 20 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 21 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 22 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 23 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 24 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 25 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 26 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 27 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 28 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 29 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 30 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 31 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 32 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 33 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 34 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 35 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 36 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 37 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 38 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 39 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 40 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 41 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 42 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 43 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 44 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 45 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 46 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 47 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 48 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 49 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 50 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 51 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 52 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 53 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 54 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 55 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 56 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 57 of 58] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 City of Orono - Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Adoption [Page 58 of 58] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 1 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 2 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 3 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 4 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 5 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 6 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 7 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 8 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 9 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 10 of 11] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Year to Date General Fund Budget Information [Page 11 of 11] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2010 Accept Donation of Property Use [Page 1 of 2] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2010 Accept Donation of Property Use [Page 2 of 2] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Accept Donation [Page 1 of 3] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Accept Donation [Page 2 of 3] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Accept Donation [Page 3 of 3] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Establish Date and Time for 2011 Annual City Goal Setting [Page 1 of 1] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 5] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 2 of 5] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 3 of 5] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 4 of 5] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 5 of 5] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 1 of 7] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 2 of 7] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 3 of 7] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 4 of 7] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 5 of 7] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 6 of 7] Item #17 - CC Agenda - 10/25/2010 Bills [Page 7 of 7]